Header Right

Thomas Jefferson

William Shakespeare had Marc Antony preach these words at Julius Caesar’s funeral:

“The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.”

Act III, Scene 2

Antony went on to list Caesar’s accomplishments in addition to his being ambitious. There was some good, some bad. Perhaps the citizens of Rome should have erected a partial statue of Caesar honoring just the good parts.

This could be a solution to our current controversy over monuments to historic figures. A committee could be composed of people who admire the works of a now dead leader and those who find the figure’s behavior flawed. A few examples might be helpful.

George Washington survived Valley Forge, presided over the Constitutional Convention and refused the opportunity to be named an emperor. On the other hand he owned hundreds of slaves and helped enshrine slavery into our legal system. The Committee might consider cutting the Washington Monument in half.

Thomas Jefferson was responsible for the Bill of Rights that guaranteed individual liberty but only to twenty-one year old white males. He also owned slaves and had children by one of them. Today such an employer/subject relationship would result in severe censure. Perhaps the Committee might recommend the Jefferson Memorial be closed every other week.

As we search for unblemished heroes to honor we could consider Abraham Lincoln who issued the Emancipation Proclamation. However, he at first averred slavery would be preferable to the disintegration of the Union and the Proclamation did not free all slaves just those in the states of the Confederacy. The Committee could maybe have a disclaimer added as a placard around his statue’s neck.

Andrew Jackson committed adultery, captured Seminole Indians under a flag of truce and as president created The Trail of Tears. On the other hand, he was a courageous and victorious military leader. A short bronze bust could replace his heroic sized statue.

As for Mount Rushmore the Committee would have to remove at least 3 of the 4 figures. Of course, Teddy Roosevelt had a penchant for shooting animals which might upset the ASPCA; so all 4 might have to be erased.

Right here in Posey County, Indiana we have a dilemma about what to do with our most famous citizen. Alvin Peterson Hovey was once Posey Circuit Court Judge, a Civil War general for the Union and our only governor. Unfortunately, he also was instrumental in helping to cover up the murders of seven Black men in October 1878. One of those Black men was shot and stuffed into a hollow tree on a farm owned by Hovey. Will the Committee have to remove the glowing patina from Hovey’s bronze in the Indiana State House?

One might look to Jesus as the paragon of virtue but even he got angry and threw the moneychangers out of the temple. He, also, voiced his hope that the cup of his great travail might pass from him. On the other hand, apparently no one knows what Jesus looked like unless one believes the Shroud of Turin is a clue. I guess the Committee would not be able to find any statues of Jesus to modify.

It appears that history has not provided us with any perfect examples to honor. Maybe the Committee will have to suggest that all statues be modified by substituting feet of clay.

I recently received a respectfully worded request for excusal from jury duty. I granted it. The potential juror claimed a religious exemption. I am not a theologian although one of my nephews just received his doctorate in Theology from Oklahoma Baptist University. He makes no claim for religious exemption from jury service. I say to each his own.

Should a person assert sincerely held beliefs that her or his god, faith, philosophy or belief prohibits jury service, so be it. Such positions, if rooted in the First Amendment, are fine with me. Religion should not be involved in our legal system. That’s what James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the revolutionaries meant to protect.

Those of you who are called for jury service and just find it inconvenient but not in violation of any religious test may think it is unfair to excuse persons who enjoy all the benefits provided by America but refuse to participate in a core responsibility of citizenship. You might feel the same about conscientious objectors to military service or those who refuse medical treatment for their children on religious grounds.

I see such decisions much as I do allowing protestors to demonstrate in support of or against things the majority may oppose or favor. If the Constitution does not protect those with whom most citizens disagree, why have a Constitution? Those whose beliefs fall within the parameters of generally accepted beliefs need not be concerned with their free exercise.

The gracious acceptance of those views most of us adhere to calls for little praise. However, America shines like the beacon most of us want Her to be when She protects those who need protection from the rest of us.

As to the potential juror, I say, and by the way so does the Supreme Court, if you are sincere in your minority belief, the majority will respect your right not only to believe it but also to exercise it.

Statistical analysis in scientific matters depends on careful observation and good math. If Carl Sagan tells us there are “billions and billions” of stars, we can pretty well rely on his conclusion. However, in sociological matters, marriages for example, statistical analysis is more akin to religion. It is sometimes based on faith and fear rather than fact.

For example, one can readily find studies that compare and contrast the rate of “successful” marriages in different cultures. The standard measure of a successful marriage in these analyses is whether they end with the death of one spouse or whether they end in divorce. Of course, the researchers must factor in a margin of error for those married couples who bypass divorce via homicide such as might occur when the in-laws overstay their welcome.

An interesting statistic that is sometimes cited by those who report on arranged marriages verses marriages that result by chance is that arranged marriages tend to be less likely to result in divorce. Of course, the researchers must first set up criteria for what they define as an arranged marriage. The old shotgun wedding comes to mind as do marriages that result in cultures where young people are at the economic and social mercy of their immediate and extended families.

It is the definition of a successful marriage that may need to be addressed. Perhaps it is the “pursuit of happiness” as Thomas Jefferson might have advised, not simple longevity, which should be the defining element.

As judge, I have married many people. Some have planned and executed marvelous weddings involving numerous people and careful attention to detail. Some couples simply drop by the Posey County Clerk’s office to get their license then walk upstairs and ask me to sign it. I have not kept statistics on all these marriages but I often come into contact with couples from both types of weddings. Many of both kinds remain married and appear to me to be successful, i.e., happy.

This weekend I will have the honor of marrying one of our seven grandchildren. Her wedding will be of the more personal and intimate kind. I wish for Paxton and Collin, her young Marine Corps fiancé, the happiness that is to be found not in the trappings of the wedding but in the commitment of those exchanging vows.

Because grandparents believe it is their duty to impart wisdom, I will offer the newlyweds the advice I once received from my Mother via one of her favorite poems. Perhaps it will help when Paxton and Collin encounter life’s inevitable yang and yin.